Template talk:Nosource
I think we should differentiate between a series that has no source and one that has "lost" its source due to the fluid nature of the internet. I think we should create a new template that shows this so that a reader will know that a series was once available, especially as things with no source will be weeded off STEU. – 16:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC) :I agree wholeheartedly. Something like this would be perfect until I can manage to find a place to host my Remington stories. --Kevin W.•Talk to me 16:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC) ::I think Remington might fall under "upcoming" instead of "lost". Not a bad idea though. --Hawku 05:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC) :::Here's a thought (I thought of this when we first started the Source thing): If you leave it as it is; as in: You have a source, you get the source template. Then there isn't a problem with "Lost" ones (We have checked it, it had a source, etc That might have been yesterday, but it was still verified by a third party... It may not exist now, but it did, and that's all that is critical). The point was to keep people from building their story here, so that works okay. As for upcoming... I hate to say this, but how do you know it's upcoming? I mean, how many people will say (For that matter have said in our own Hailing Frequencies) "No really! It's upcoming! It's sitting right here on my desk! I have a whole story! It's just not online yet!"? I think the Source thing is fine just the way it is; If it exists now and we can see evidence of it's existence, then it gets a "Source" tag. Things that once existed will have to have some paper trail somewhere, other than "I remember that one thing... that one time..." Which wouldn't be very encyclopedic anyway... I really feel that adding "Lost" or "upcoming" will do nothing more than muddle the situation. :::As a side note, didn't Remington exist somewhere? I thought for sure I've seen it somewhere... Kevin, I hate to be cruel to you (Because I'm absolutely sure Remington exists), but if it can't be verified by a third party, then it shouldn't get a source tag... I mean, that would defeat the point completely, wouldn't it? I've got to say, though... If Remington doesn't have a source tag, I think we are sure enough that it exists that we certainly don't want to delete it :D Aabh 15:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC) ::::Actually, I now agree with Aabh, we should just leave it as it is. – 16:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC) External link suggestions What if we added suggestions to this template, like where someone could look into posting their fiction? It seems like a lot of newbies here aren't sure how to get their fiction on the internet, so why don't we help them out a bit? * Fanfiction.net (the Star Trek section) * Trek Writers Guild.com * Blogger.com * Star Trek: Fan Fiction Those are just some suggestions. Let me know what you guys think. --Hawku 05:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC) :Including them in the template might make the template too large. Probably the best place for them is on Star Trek Expanded Universe:Sourced article since it is linked to in the template. So just add a section to that page that suggests sites known for hosting Star Trek fan fiction. – 13:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC) ::Good idea. I just added the above links to Star Trek Expanded Universe:Sourced article. --Hawku 22:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Policy link? Here's another what if. :-) What if we added a link to the policy on citation? This one: Star Trek Expanded Universe:Citation --Hawku 17:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC) ---- All of Hawku's suggestions sound good to me, FWIW. So does Jrofeta's, about differentiating. Re: Aabh's - I appreciate where he's coming from, and in the present situation, perhaps that's the best/only viable solution. But (this is just my own perspective, and reiterates previous discussions re: this issue) (and as always, nothing personal against Aabh) it still seems odd to me, to tag properly sourced articles as "properly sourced". Sourced articles should be the norm, the model others follow, rather than vice versa. Take Wikipedia for example. They don't say "This article has sources", but rather provide links to the sources (which should be all the verification anyone needs). But STEU isn't Wikipedia; the matter is a little murkier here (as Aabh pointed out), so again, maybe that's the only solution. I also agree with Aabh's "upcoming" viewpoint. Make one or two exceptions and a hundred will be lined up, wanting the same protection. But, if we grant a limited time period as Hawku suggested for providing that "upcoming" source, then that might motivate those folks to make those sources available. Once that limit's maxed out, if no source has been provided, it could get axed. 23:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC) :: I see what you are saying, Sas. I think you are totally right; The way I see it our "Sourced" is the exact same problem as Wikipedia's Citing Sources problem. I also agree that our default mode should be "Sourced" with non-sourced things being marked and noted for deletion. Perhaps we ought to start moving away from "Sourced" in favor of "Non-Sourced" (okay, so it's probably not so reasonable today). So, maybe from now on we should watch for "Unsourced" things, mark them like Wiki marks a non-cited article. Aabh 10:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)